Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Jerry
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Taibak
Where does the mass go? If I'm following you right, a spacecraft travelling in a straight line between the Sun and Neptune should see the Sun's mass decrease and Neptune's mass increase. What happens to the Sun's mass? Where does Neptune's increased mass come from?
|
Not a change in mass, a change in the ‘momental capacity’ of the spacecraft. We are used to Newton’s idea that momentum is inherent in the mass of an object and independent of the mass of nearby objects. I am hypothesizing that a quantity of electro-gravitational) field strength is necessary to sustain momentum. If the field strength is not strong enough to support the object in motion, the path the object follows changes coarse, and energy is conserved by either rotating or by radiating the excess kinetic energy - the greater the momentum, the higher the frequency of the radiation. |
The problem with that line of argument is that Newton's concept of momentum has an amazingly successful track record in classical and quantum physics and, with some modifications, in relativity. Anything you posit here has to be consistent with quantum mechanical effects.
Also, if I understand you right, you're theory says that the
Pioneer probes should have either started to rotate faster or become brighter (in terms of absolute magnitude) as they've moved away from the Sun. Have either of those been observed?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Jerry
I think all momentum in a gravitational system is governed by the total mass, not just the mass of the object in motion. Look what is happening at the edges of galaxies: The stars have too much momentum, they should be flying farther out from the gravitational center. There are two well known theories that explain this, MOND and Dark Matter. Neither of them work all the time. I am hypothesizing that stars near the edges of galaxies do not follow the path that their inertial energy dictates because there is not a ‘strong’ enough 'electro-gravitational' path near the edges of galaxies to follow. So they stay in lower orbits, radiating the difference in energy between the orbital velocity as predicted by Newton and the observed angular momentum. This is why galaxies are radio loud. This is also why jets emitted from galactic cores stay collimated for such great lengths.
|
That's a problematic explanation. We know that stars are intrinsically bright in radio and we know that interstellar dust emits radio. We also know that galaxies contain lots of dust and lots of stars. We have the photos to prove that. The relationship between the radio noise, the stars, and the dust is explained very well by black body radiation. If your theories are correct, galaxies should be *brighter* in radio than expected by a simple black body curve. Is there any evidence for this?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Jerry
For a more local example: assume Neptune was captured by the Sun into what started as a highly elliptical orbit elliptical orbit.
|
Why make that assumption? Is there any evidence that this happened?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Jerry
But when Neptune tried to use the momentum it picked up accelerating toward the sun to return to in a highly eliptical orbit like a comet, it was only able to 'climb' into the orbit it is now in. This is where it ran out of the supportive 'electro-gravitational' field strength necessary to sustain momentum away from the solar system. The slight differential in the field effects converted some of the inertia energy of Neptune into rotational momentum, settling the planet into a nearly round orbit.
|
Where did the extra angular momentum go?
Also, what about the inner planets? If there is an electromagnetic component to gravity, the inner planets should be a better test. Compare the Earth and Venus. Their masses are very similar, so their 'gravitational charge,' if you will, should be very similar. However, Earth has a strong magnetic field and Venus does not. How does your theory relate that to those orbits?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Jerry
The remaining rotational energy is slowly being radiated away as thermal energy.
|
That doesn't make a lot of sense. How does rotational energy get converted into heat?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Jerry
This would explain why Neptune radiates 2.7 times more radiant energy than it receives,
|
True, but that's also explicable by current models of planetary formation. Basically, Neptune, like all the gas giants, is still forming. It started off hot and unlike, say, Mercury or Mars, hasn't completely cooled yet because it's so honkin' big.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Jerry
It also explains the quirky observation that the rotational velocity of planets is proportional to the amount of excess radiation they give off, as Lunatik has pointed out. (It could even explain why Neptune is an exception to Bodes’ law: Neptune could be a recent acquisition.) Spooky, huh?
|
I wouldn't put much stock in either of those. There's no evidence that Neptune was captured (it's in a conventional orbit and it's composition is very similar to Uranus) and there's still no good explanation for why Bode's law is anything more than a coincidence. Besides, if Bode's Law does work,
everything in the Solar System should follow it. It can't explain comets. They're some of the oldest objects in the Solar System and don't even come close to fitting into Bode's law.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Jerry
The same thing happens with supernova: In the plane of the galaxy they can expand very rapidly, but they cannot expand nearly so quickly perpendicular to the plane of the host galaxy.
|
Isn't that just conservation of angular momentum?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Jerry
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Taibak
Also, different data was used to measure the two properties. Like you said, the orbital speeds of Saturn's moons and the deflections of various probes were used to measure it's mass. You can't use those to measure its rotation.
|
I am hypothesizing that since they underestimated the gravitational pull on Voyager during its closest pass, they miss-judged the amount of space Voyager traveled during one orbit of Saturn. If the magnetic forces are playing havoc with the radio waves from the surface, we should have the same problem using radar to fix the rotations of Jupiter, Uranus and the Sun.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Taibak
...Except Voyager II observed these volcanoes directly during its Triton flyby.
|
What evidence is there that is was a nitrogen volcano, and not just a normal molten lave type? |
Spectra.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Jerry
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Taibak
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Jerry
Dysfunctional landing pads is just the kind of thing I am looking for! Do they know the rockets shut down before it hit, or is this just a guess because they know it hit too hard? How do we know the craft was not accelerating much faster than planned, and this created enough resistive air flow to trip the pad sensors?
|
How does a systems failure support your theory? All NASA seems to be saying is that something went wrong on the spacecraft. |
Every single time NASA uses a systemic explanation for what I think should be a gravitational failure, I must have a reasonable argument against NASA’s determination. Has NASA seen pictures that show a crash landing? What else do we know? |
That there are other ways to document a systems failure. Anomalous signals, failure of a key system to deploy, etc. Have you looked into whether or not NASA examined those possibilities and whether or not they were justified in doing so?
Also, if your theory is right, than something is badly flawed in our understanding of gravitation and kinematics. How then do you explain the successful
Apollo,
Venera,
Viking, and
Pathfinder landings?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Jerry
Current theory says Neptune is made up of mostly water, while the Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Pluto systems are made up mostly of lighter gases.
|
Huh? Do you have any documentation for this? Every text I've ever read says that Neptune is mostly hydrogen with some ammonia and methane and that Pluto is mostly rocks and ices.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Jerry
In a condensation scenario for the solar system, the inner planets consist of higher density material and the outer planets of material of decreasing density. Water is more dense than the hydrogen and helium saturn and jupiter are suppose to be made out of. Why isn't the orbit of Neptune inside the orbit of jupiter?
|
That's not that strong a consequence of the condensation hypothesis. Uranus, for instance, is denser than Saturn.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Jerry
Until we can explain this, and why Neptune emits 2.7 x as much radiation as it receives, until we can explain how a planet made out of water generates a relatively strong magnetic field, we don’t have a workable model of the solar system.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Jerry
Pioneer 10 & 11 gave us a definitive test of Newtonian gravity, and Newtonian gravity failed the test. It is that simple.
And we all wonder what happens next.
|
Why do you dismiss the theory that they're just slowing down thanks to relentless collisions with Kuiper Belt dust?
Edited to fix some tags.Stupid tags.